== Indeed, we can play with this doy for weeks; it is much superior to kick the an and watching reruns of Seinfeld in this regard. [[User:Deliberatus|Deliberatus]] 10:27, 24 November 2011 (CST)Deliberatus ==

+

== Indeed, we can play with this toy for weeks; it is much superior to kick the an and watching reruns of Seinfeld in this regard. [[User:Deliberatus|Deliberatus]] 10:27, 24 November 2011 (CST)Deliberatus ==

When I have time, I am seriously going to consider cleaning up some of this. The Second Way is not about a first cause in time, but rather at the fundamental level of reality ''happening right now''. Aquinas' first two arguments are about ''essentially ordered series'', not accidental ones. I.e., causal series connected and happening as we speak with each member a necessity (like a series of gears or a train), as opposed to a series that does not require each member to be present and strung out through time (like parents and offspring).

When I have time, I am seriously going to consider cleaning up some of this. The Second Way is not about a first cause in time, but rather at the fundamental level of reality ''happening right now''. Aquinas' first two arguments are about ''essentially ordered series'', not accidental ones. I.e., causal series connected and happening as we speak with each member a necessity (like a series of gears or a train), as opposed to a series that does not require each member to be present and strung out through time (like parents and offspring).

I wonder why it never occurred to the authors of this article to, I don't know, actually consider what the argument says rather than what it doesn't say...??? [[User:Hammiesink|Hammiesink]] 18:19, 29 March 2011 (CDT)

I wonder why it never occurred to the authors of this article to, I don't know, actually consider what the argument says rather than what it doesn't say...??? [[User:Hammiesink|Hammiesink]] 18:19, 29 March 2011 (CDT)

Revision as of 11:31, 24 November 2011

Another potential argument:

One of the fundamental arguments is that existence had to have been created by a deity. However, this can only be dependent on a god whose existence is not bound by the concept of time; a god who has forever existed. By positing this, one is then also positing that existence has always existed. However, if existence has always existed, why is there a need for a creator god?

The 1st law is that energy cant be created/destroyed. Everything is made of energy. Therefore, it stands to reason that existence, itself, is also eternal. This could lend a valid reason to asking why it's necessary to posit a god when both believers and nonbeliever could essentially begin by saying, "Existence has always existed." However, Occam's razor would favor the nonbeliever's side, as it doesn't take the unnecessary step of adding an unneeded entity.

Bah. Enough rambling. I'm sure there's a better way to word what I've just said. Anyhow, take care.

Whist the first law of thermodynamics does state that energy cannot technically be created or destroyed, many physicists including but not limited to Hawking, Kaku and Vic Stenger have pointed out in there books that if you add up all the matter and energy against all the anti matter and gravity, the sum total of mass in the universe actually comes to zero. You could technically argue that the universe is all smoke and mirrors with no smoke and no mirrors.

Therefore, being a zero sum game, the universe is created not by creating energy, but by a event(a chaos event?) which separated sign and antisign, particle and antiparticle. The difference appears one not of energy, but of ordering, ie, information. Elsewhere it is posited that information cannot be destroyed. What thereore should we make of this? Deliberatus 10:27, 24 November 2011 (CST)Deliberatus

This is theoretical conjecture involving mathematics way over my head of course, but the point is that the top physicists at the leading edge of the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics argue that there is no intrinsic conflict between the current theories of science and the possibility that the universe came from 'nothing'.

I agree with you that either way its argued (infinitely or finite), Occams razor more or less precludes the necessity of a god, or a pink unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster or whatever. But as far as the actual 'uncaused cause' or 'first cause' argument is concerned, if we want to stick to the facts, all we can really say is that we can trace the history of existence back to a singularity at plank time, and before that we don't know what happened. May have been already existed. May have formed from a singularity in another universe or multiverse. May have simply sprung from nothing which as vic stenger likes to point out is a fairly unstable state. May have even been god (though the other hypotheses mentioned don't necessarily violate what we currently know about science) but to say definitively one way or the other as if its fact is basically making shit up.--Murphy 03:07, 4 December 2009 (CST)

Holy mother of god, what a clusterfuck.

Indeed, we can play with this toy for weeks; it is much superior to kick the an and watching reruns of Seinfeld in this regard. Deliberatus 10:27, 24 November 2011 (CST)Deliberatus

When I have time, I am seriously going to consider cleaning up some of this. The Second Way is not about a first cause in time, but rather at the fundamental level of reality happening right now. Aquinas' first two arguments are about essentially ordered series, not accidental ones. I.e., causal series connected and happening as we speak with each member a necessity (like a series of gears or a train), as opposed to a series that does not require each member to be present and strung out through time (like parents and offspring).

I wonder why it never occurred to the authors of this article to, I don't know, actually consider what the argument says rather than what it doesn't say...??? Hammiesink 18:19, 29 March 2011 (CDT)